(PC) Casey v. Docanto ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES ARTHUR CASEY, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00420-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. ) FOR APPOINTMENT COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 M. DOCANTO, et al., ) ) (ECF No. 10) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) ) 17 ) 18 Plaintiff James Arthur Casey is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed April 1, 2020. 21 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 22 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent 23 plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern 24 District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court 25 may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 26 1525. 27 /// 28 /// 1 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 2 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 3 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the 4 merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 5 legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 6 The test for exceptional circumstances requires the Court to evaluate the Plaintiff’s likelihood 7 of success on the merits and the ability of the Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 8 complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 9 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances common to most 10 prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional 11 circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. In the present case, on 12 March 30, 2020, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found he failed to state a cognizable 13 claim for relief. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff was provided the applicable legal standards and granted leave 14 to amend. (Id.) Although Plaintiff contends that he suffers from a disability under the Americans with 15 Disabilities Act, based on a review of the complaint and the instant motion, the Court finds that 16 Plaintiff is able to articulate the facts and circumstances relating to his claims. Further, even if it 17 assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if 18 proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The Court is faced with similar cases 19 almost daily. While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a disadvantage due to his pro se status and 20 his incarceration, the test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the appointment of counsel. See 21 Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Most actions require development of 22 further facts during litigation and a pro se litigant will seldom be in a position to investigate easily the 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 || facts necessary to support the case.”) The test is whether exception circumstances exist and here, the 2 ||do not. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel will be DENIED without 3 || prejudice. 4 5 || IT IS SO ORDERED. Al fe 6 || Dated: _ April 2, 2020 OF 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28